Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 236 | 51.30 ± 13.02 (23 - 75) | 50.76 ± 13.39 (23 - 75) | 51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75) | 0.532 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 238 | 0.316 | |||
f | 194 (82%) | 94 (79%) | 100 (84%) | ||
m | 44 (18%) | 25 (21%) | 19 (16%) | ||
occupation | 238 | ||||
day_training | 6 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
full_time | 26 (11%) | 13 (11%) | 13 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (13%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
part_time | 42 (18%) | 23 (19%) | 19 (16%) | ||
retired | 57 (24%) | 26 (22%) | 31 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.7%) | 3 (2.5%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 53 (22%) | 28 (24%) | 25 (21%) | ||
marital | 238 | 0.875 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
divore | 26 (11%) | 14 (12%) | 12 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
married | 71 (30%) | 33 (28%) | 38 (32%) | ||
none | 113 (47%) | 58 (49%) | 55 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.3%) | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (8.0%) | 10 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
edu | 238 | 0.622 | |||
bachelor | 48 (20%) | 20 (17%) | 28 (24%) | ||
diploma | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.5%) | 4 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 16 (6.7%) | 9 (7.6%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
primary | 20 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | 11 (9.2%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 65 (27%) | 30 (25%) | 35 (29%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.5%) | 6 (5.0%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
fam_income | 238 | ||||
10001_12000 | 8 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | 6 (5.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (4.6%) | 4 (3.4%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (5.0%) | 4 (3.4%) | 8 (6.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.1%) | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.2%) | 7 (5.9%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
20001_above | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
2001_4000 | 35 (15%) | 17 (14%) | 18 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (13%) | 14 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 21 (8.8%) | 12 (10%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.4%) | 11 (9.2%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
below_2000 | 45 (19%) | 21 (18%) | 24 (20%) | ||
medication | 238 | 213 (89%) | 106 (89%) | 107 (90%) | 0.833 |
onset_duration | 236 | 15.15 ± 10.98 (0 - 63) | 14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56) | 15.47 ± 10.69 (0 - 63) | 0.658 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 234 | 36.24 ± 14.75 (-18 - 72) | 35.84 ± 13.75 (10 - 72) | 36.63 ± 15.74 (-18 - 68) | 0.682 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 238 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.456 |
recovery_stage_b | 238 | 17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24) | 18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24) | 17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.677 |
ras_confidence | 238 | 29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45) | 29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45) | 30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45) | 0.671 |
ras_willingness | 238 | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15) | 11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15) | 0.763 |
ras_goal | 238 | 17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25) | 17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 0.415 |
ras_reliance | 238 | 13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20) | 13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20) | 0.636 |
ras_domination | 238 | 9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15) | 9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 0.211 |
symptom | 238 | 30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70) | 31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70) | 30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56) | 0.337 |
slof_work | 238 | 22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30) | 22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30) | 22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30) | 0.748 |
slof_relationship | 238 | 25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35) | 24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35) | 25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35) | 0.286 |
satisfaction | 238 | 20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35) | 0.210 |
mhc_emotional | 238 | 10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 0.705 |
mhc_social | 238 | 15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30) | 15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30) | 15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30) | 0.974 |
mhc_psychological | 238 | 21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36) | 21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36) | 21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36) | 0.948 |
resilisnce | 238 | 16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30) | 0.214 |
social_provision | 238 | 13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20) | 13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 0.050 |
els_value_living | 238 | 17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25) | 17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25) | 0.370 |
els_life_fulfill | 238 | 12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 0.128 |
els | 238 | 29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45) | 29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45) | 30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45) | 0.186 |
social_connect | 238 | 27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48) | 27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48) | 26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48) | 0.382 |
shs_agency | 238 | 14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 0.149 |
shs_pathway | 238 | 15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24) | 15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24) | 0.080 |
shs | 238 | 30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48) | 29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48) | 0.098 |
esteem | 238 | 12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20) | 12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20) | 0.701 |
mlq_search | 238 | 14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21) | 14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 0.182 |
mlq_presence | 238 | 13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21) | 13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21) | 13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21) | 0.496 |
mlq | 238 | 28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42) | 27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42) | 28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42) | 0.278 |
empower | 238 | 19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30) | 19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30) | 0.377 |
ismi_resistance | 238 | 14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 0.844 |
ismi_discrimation | 238 | 11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20) | 0.966 |
sss_affective | 238 | 10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.727 |
sss_behavior | 238 | 10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 0.759 |
sss_cognitive | 238 | 8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.514 |
sss | 238 | 29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54) | 29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54) | 29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54) | 0.804 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.111 | 2.98, 3.42 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.118 | 0.157 | -0.426, 0.191 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.035 | 0.147 | -0.254, 0.323 | 0.815 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.309 | 0.210 | -0.104, 0.721 | 0.144 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.273 | 17.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.160 | 0.386 | -0.916, 0.597 | 0.680 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.225 | 0.280 | -0.773, 0.323 | 0.422 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.878 | 0.401 | 0.093, 1.66 | 0.030 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.523 | 28.8, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.311 | 0.739 | -1.14, 1.76 | 0.674 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.668 | 0.476 | -0.264, 1.60 | 0.162 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.30 | 0.682 | -0.033, 2.64 | 0.058 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.194 | 11.2, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.084 | 0.274 | -0.453, 0.621 | 0.759 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.063 | 0.207 | -0.343, 0.469 | 0.762 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.317 | 0.297 | -0.264, 0.899 | 0.286 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.305 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.353 | 0.432 | -0.493, 1.20 | 0.414 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.298 | 0.301 | -0.292, 0.889 | 0.324 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.559 | 0.431 | -0.287, 1.40 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.268 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.176 | 0.379 | -0.567, 0.920 | 0.642 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.249 | 0.253 | -0.246, 0.744 | 0.326 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.570 | 0.362 | -0.139, 1.28 | 0.117 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.223 | 9.58, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.395 | 0.315 | -1.01, 0.222 | 0.211 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.034 | 0.251 | -0.526, 0.457 | 0.892 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.894 | 0.359 | 0.190, 1.60 | 0.014 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.4 | 0.912 | 29.6, 33.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.24 | 1.289 | -3.77, 1.28 | 0.336 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.13 | 0.787 | -2.67, 0.415 | 0.154 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.252 | 1.127 | -2.46, 1.96 | 0.824 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.420 | 21.4, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.193 | 0.594 | -1.36, 0.971 | 0.745 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.264 | 0.405 | -0.530, 1.06 | 0.515 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.466 | 0.580 | -0.671, 1.60 | 0.423 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.7 | 0.526 | 23.6, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.798 | 0.744 | -0.660, 2.26 | 0.284 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.106 | 0.505 | -1.10, 0.885 | 0.835 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.783 | 0.724 | -0.635, 2.20 | 0.281 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 0.663 | 18.6, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.938 | -0.662, 3.01 | 0.211 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.826 | 0.611 | -0.371, 2.02 | 0.178 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.358 | 0.875 | -1.36, 2.07 | 0.683 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.344 | 10.1, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.185 | 0.486 | -0.768, 1.14 | 0.704 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.376 | 0.293 | -0.199, 0.951 | 0.202 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.111 | 0.420 | -0.935, 0.713 | 0.791 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.561 | 14.2, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.025 | 0.794 | -1.58, 1.53 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.653 | 0.499 | -0.326, 1.63 | 0.193 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.003 | 0.715 | -1.41, 1.40 | 0.997 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.649 | 20.6, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.059 | 0.918 | -1.74, 1.86 | 0.949 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 0.580 | -0.130, 2.14 | 0.085 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.295 | 0.831 | -1.92, 1.33 | 0.723 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.405 | 15.5, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.723 | 0.572 | -0.399, 1.84 | 0.208 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.752 | 0.404 | -0.039, 1.54 | 0.064 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.745 | 0.578 | -0.388, 1.88 | 0.199 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.260 | 12.7, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.706 | 0.368 | -0.016, 1.43 | 0.056 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.191 | 0.258 | -0.697, 0.315 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.514 | 0.370 | -0.212, 1.24 | 0.167 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.294 | 16.3, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.370 | 0.415 | -0.444, 1.18 | 0.374 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.347 | 0.284 | -0.210, 0.904 | 0.224 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.317 | 0.407 | -0.481, 1.11 | 0.438 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.306 | 11.9, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.664 | 0.433 | -0.184, 1.51 | 0.126 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.228 | 0.277 | -0.315, 0.772 | 0.412 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.327 | 0.398 | -0.452, 1.11 | 0.412 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.556 | 28.3, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.786 | -0.506, 2.57 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.605 | 0.485 | -0.345, 1.56 | 0.214 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.612 | 0.695 | -0.750, 1.97 | 0.380 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.846 | 25.9, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 1.197 | -3.38, 1.31 | 0.388 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.125 | 0.721 | -1.54, 1.29 | 0.862 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.87 | 1.033 | -4.89, -0.842 | 0.006 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.465 | 13.1, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.941 | 0.657 | -0.347, 2.23 | 0.153 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.404 | 0.394 | -0.367, 1.18 | 0.306 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.397 | 0.564 | -0.709, 1.50 | 0.483 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.377 | 14.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.958 | 0.533 | -0.088, 2.00 | 0.074 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.585 | 0.350 | -0.101, 1.27 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.233 | 0.502 | -0.750, 1.22 | 0.643 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.803 | 27.8, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.90 | 1.136 | -0.328, 4.13 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.999 | 0.682 | -0.338, 2.34 | 0.145 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.611 | 0.978 | -1.31, 2.53 | 0.533 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.147 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.084 | 0.207 | -0.490, 0.322 | 0.685 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.130 | 0.186 | -0.495, 0.235 | 0.486 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.087 | 0.267 | -0.435, 0.610 | 0.743 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.317 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.605 | 0.448 | -0.273, 1.48 | 0.178 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.859 | 0.353 | 0.166, 1.55 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.766 | 0.506 | -1.76, 0.226 | 0.132 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.387 | 12.6, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.378 | 0.548 | -0.695, 1.45 | 0.490 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.839 | 0.402 | 0.052, 1.63 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.044 | 0.575 | -1.17, 1.08 | 0.940 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 0.639 | 26.5, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.983 | 0.903 | -0.788, 2.75 | 0.277 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.70 | 0.672 | 0.381, 3.01 | 0.012 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.801 | 0.962 | -2.69, 1.08 | 0.406 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.416 | 18.2, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.588 | -0.640, 1.67 | 0.384 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.887 | 0.392 | 0.120, 1.65 | 0.025 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.257 | 0.561 | -1.36, 0.843 | 0.648 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.237 | 14.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.067 | 0.335 | -0.724, 0.590 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.279 | 0.280 | -0.270, 0.828 | 0.320 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.600 | 0.401 | -0.186, 1.39 | 0.136 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.283 | 11.2, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.017 | 0.400 | -0.801, 0.767 | 0.967 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.445 | 0.328 | -1.09, 0.197 | 0.176 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.644 | 0.469 | -1.56, 0.276 | 0.172 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.339 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.480 | -0.773, 1.11 | 0.727 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.422 | 0.314 | -1.04, 0.193 | 0.181 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.684 | 0.450 | -1.56, 0.198 | 0.131 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.345 | 9.54, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.151 | 0.488 | -1.11, 0.806 | 0.757 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.649 | 0.311 | -1.26, -0.040 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.115 | 0.445 | -0.988, 0.757 | 0.796 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.74 | 0.344 | 8.06, 9.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.328 | 0.487 | -0.627, 1.28 | 0.502 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.542 | 0.314 | -1.16, 0.074 | 0.087 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.573 | 0.450 | -1.46, 0.310 | 0.205 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.970 | 27.5, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.345 | 1.372 | -2.34, 3.03 | 0.802 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.59 | 0.805 | -3.17, -0.012 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.32 | 1.154 | -3.58, 0.939 | 0.254 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(374) = 28.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(374) = -0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(374) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72], t(374) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(374) = 65.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(374) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32], t(374) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.09, 1.66], t(374) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.03, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(374) = 57.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(374) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.60], t(374) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.64], t(374) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-5.71e-03, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(374) = 59.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(374) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47], t(374) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.90], t(374) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.83], t(374) = 56.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.89], t(374) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.40], t(374) = 1.29, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(374) = 49.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(374) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.74], t(374) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.28], t(374) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(374) = 45.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(374) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.46], t(374) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.19, 1.60], t(374) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [0.08, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.57, 33.15], t(374) = 34.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(374) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.41], t(374) = -1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.96], t(374) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(374) = 53.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(374) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.06], t(374) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.60], t(374) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(374) = 46.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.26], t(374) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.88], t(374) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.20], t(374) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(374) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(374) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.02], t(374) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.07], t(374) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(374) = 31.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(374) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.95], t(374) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.71], t(374) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.24, 16.44], t(374) = 27.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(374) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.63], t(374) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.77e-03, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.40], t(374) = -3.87e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = -4.62e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(374) = 33.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(374) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.14], t(374) = 1.74, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.92, 1.33], t(374) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(374) = 40.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(374) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.54], t(374) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-8.72e-03, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.88], t(374) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(374) = 50.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(374) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.53e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.32], t(374) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.24], t(374) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(374) = 57.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(374) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.90], t(374) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.11], t(374) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(374) = 40.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(374) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.77], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.11], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.48], t(374) = 52.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.57], t(374) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.56], t(374) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.97], t(374) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(374) = 32.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(374) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.29], t(374) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.87, 95% CI [-4.89, -0.84], t(374) = -2.77, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(374) = 30.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(374) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.18], t(374) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.50], t(374) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(374) = 40.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(374) = 1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.27], t(374) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.22], t(374) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(374) = 36.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(374) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.34], t(374) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.53], t(374) = 0.62, p = 0.532; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(374) = 87.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(374) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.24], t(374) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61], t(374) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(374) = 45.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(374) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.17, 1.55], t(374) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.05, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.23], t(374) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(374) = 34.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.45], t(374) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.05, 1.63], t(374) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.01, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.08], t(374) = -0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(374) = 43.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(374) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [0.38, 3.01], t(374) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.69, 1.08], t(374) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.18, 19.82], t(374) = 45.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.67], t(374) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.12, 1.65], t(374) = 2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.03, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.84], t(374) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(374) = 60.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(374) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.83], t(374) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.39], t(374) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(374) = 41.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(374) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.20], t(374) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.28], t(374) = -1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(374) = 30.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(374) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.19], t(374) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.20], t(374) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.90], t(374) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(374) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.04], t(374) = -2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.76], t(374) = -0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.06, 9.41], t(374) = 25.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(374) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.07], t(374) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.31], t(374) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(374) = 30.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(374) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.01], t(374) = -1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -1.10e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.58, 0.94], t(374) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,209.063 | 1,220.883 | -601.531 | 1,203.063 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,209.834 | 1,233.475 | -598.917 | 1,197.834 | 5.228 | 3 | 0.156 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,836.049 | 1,847.870 | -915.024 | 1,830.049 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,836.145 | 1,859.786 | -912.072 | 1,824.145 | 5.904 | 3 | 0.116 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,312.764 | 2,324.584 | -1,153.382 | 2,306.764 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,300.343 | 2,323.984 | -1,144.172 | 2,288.343 | 18.420 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,583.696 | 1,595.516 | -788.848 | 1,577.696 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,585.865 | 1,609.506 | -786.932 | 1,573.865 | 3.831 | 3 | 0.280 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,915.883 | 1,927.703 | -954.941 | 1,909.883 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,911.744 | 1,935.385 | -949.872 | 1,899.744 | 10.139 | 3 | 0.017 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,807.643 | 1,819.464 | -900.822 | 1,801.643 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,801.977 | 1,825.618 | -894.989 | 1,789.977 | 11.666 | 3 | 0.009 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,708.568 | 1,720.389 | -851.284 | 1,702.568 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,703.416 | 1,727.057 | -845.708 | 1,691.416 | 11.153 | 3 | 0.011 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,709.579 | 2,721.399 | -1,351.789 | 2,703.579 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,709.510 | 2,733.151 | -1,348.755 | 2,697.510 | 6.069 | 3 | 0.108 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,146.339 | 2,158.159 | -1,070.169 | 2,140.339 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,148.802 | 2,172.443 | -1,068.401 | 2,136.802 | 3.536 | 3 | 0.316 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,316.636 | 2,328.456 | -1,155.318 | 2,310.636 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,318.688 | 2,342.329 | -1,153.344 | 2,306.688 | 3.947 | 3 | 0.267 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,485.553 | 2,497.374 | -1,239.777 | 2,479.553 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,484.167 | 2,507.808 | -1,236.083 | 2,472.167 | 7.387 | 3 | 0.061 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,961.720 | 1,973.541 | -977.860 | 1,955.720 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,965.208 | 1,988.849 | -976.604 | 1,953.208 | 2.512 | 3 | 0.473 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,346.071 | 2,357.891 | -1,170.035 | 2,340.071 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,348.775 | 2,372.416 | -1,168.387 | 2,336.775 | 3.296 | 3 | 0.348 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,458.460 | 2,470.280 | -1,226.230 | 2,452.460 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,460.066 | 2,483.707 | -1,224.033 | 2,448.066 | 4.394 | 3 | 0.222 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,141.734 | 2,153.554 | -1,067.867 | 2,135.734 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,128.801 | 2,152.442 | -1,058.401 | 2,116.801 | 18.932 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,794.794 | 1,806.615 | -894.397 | 1,788.794 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,792.600 | 1,816.241 | -890.300 | 1,780.600 | 8.195 | 3 | 0.042 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,879.325 | 1,891.145 | -936.662 | 1,873.325 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,877.332 | 1,900.973 | -932.666 | 1,865.332 | 7.993 | 3 | 0.046 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,894.489 | 1,906.309 | -944.244 | 1,888.489 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,892.646 | 1,916.287 | -940.323 | 1,880.646 | 7.843 | 3 | 0.049 |
els | null | 3 | 2,339.984 | 2,351.805 | -1,166.992 | 2,333.984 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,335.960 | 2,359.601 | -1,161.980 | 2,323.960 | 10.024 | 3 | 0.018 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,662.146 | 2,673.966 | -1,328.073 | 2,656.146 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,649.585 | 2,673.226 | -1,318.793 | 2,637.585 | 18.560 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,194.448 | 2,206.268 | -1,094.224 | 2,188.448 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,192.722 | 2,216.364 | -1,090.361 | 2,180.722 | 7.725 | 3 | 0.052 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,063.333 | 2,075.154 | -1,028.667 | 2,057.333 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,057.429 | 2,081.070 | -1,022.714 | 2,045.429 | 11.905 | 3 | 0.008 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,614.257 | 2,626.077 | -1,304.128 | 2,608.257 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,609.356 | 2,632.998 | -1,298.678 | 2,597.356 | 10.900 | 3 | 0.012 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,406.611 | 1,418.432 | -700.306 | 1,400.611 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,411.990 | 1,435.631 | -699.995 | 1,399.990 | 0.621 | 3 | 0.892 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,969.761 | 1,981.582 | -981.881 | 1,963.761 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,969.144 | 1,992.785 | -978.572 | 1,957.144 | 6.617 | 3 | 0.085 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,107.126 | 2,118.946 | -1,050.563 | 2,101.126 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,104.770 | 2,128.411 | -1,046.385 | 2,092.770 | 8.355 | 3 | 0.039 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,491.164 | 2,502.985 | -1,242.582 | 2,485.164 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,488.569 | 2,512.210 | -1,238.285 | 2,476.569 | 8.595 | 3 | 0.035 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,137.277 | 2,149.098 | -1,065.639 | 2,131.277 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,135.266 | 2,158.907 | -1,061.633 | 2,123.266 | 8.012 | 3 | 0.046 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,766.280 | 1,778.100 | -880.140 | 1,760.280 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,761.891 | 1,785.532 | -874.945 | 1,749.891 | 10.389 | 3 | 0.016 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,898.402 | 1,910.222 | -946.201 | 1,892.402 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,891.965 | 1,915.606 | -939.982 | 1,879.965 | 12.437 | 3 | 0.006 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,983.655 | 1,995.475 | -988.827 | 1,977.655 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,976.272 | 1,999.913 | -982.136 | 1,964.272 | 13.383 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,986.480 | 1,998.301 | -990.240 | 1,980.480 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,982.306 | 2,005.947 | -985.153 | 1,970.306 | 10.174 | 3 | 0.017 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,992.935 | 2,004.755 | -993.467 | 1,986.935 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,984.126 | 2,007.767 | -986.063 | 1,972.126 | 14.808 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,756.483 | 2,768.304 | -1,375.242 | 2,750.483 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,746.535 | 2,770.176 | -1,367.267 | 2,734.535 | 15.949 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 119 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 119 | 3.08 ± 1.21 | 0.455 | 0.124 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 73 | 3.24 ± 1.18 | -0.036 | 69 | 3.43 ± 1.18 | -0.363 | 0.334 | -0.202 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 119 | 18.01 ± 2.98 | 119 | 17.85 ± 2.98 | 0.680 | 0.091 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 73 | 17.78 ± 2.72 | 0.129 | 69 | 18.50 ± 2.70 | -0.373 | 0.115 | -0.411 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 119 | 29.82 ± 5.70 | 119 | 30.13 ± 5.70 | 0.674 | -0.105 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 73 | 30.48 ± 5.08 | -0.226 | 69 | 32.10 ± 5.02 | -0.668 | 0.058 | -0.547 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 119 | 11.61 ± 2.11 | 119 | 11.70 ± 2.11 | 0.759 | -0.065 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 73 | 11.68 ± 1.95 | -0.048 | 69 | 12.08 ± 1.94 | -0.293 | 0.220 | -0.309 |
ras_goal | 1st | 119 | 17.23 ± 3.33 | 119 | 17.58 ± 3.33 | 0.414 | -0.188 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 73 | 17.53 ± 3.02 | -0.159 | 69 | 18.44 ± 2.99 | -0.456 | 0.071 | -0.485 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 119 | 13.16 ± 2.93 | 119 | 13.34 ± 2.93 | 0.642 | -0.112 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 73 | 13.41 ± 2.63 | -0.159 | 69 | 14.16 ± 2.60 | -0.522 | 0.090 | -0.475 |
ras_domination | 1st | 119 | 10.02 ± 2.43 | 119 | 9.62 ± 2.43 | 0.211 | 0.250 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 73 | 9.98 ± 2.27 | 0.022 | 69 | 10.48 ± 2.26 | -0.544 | 0.190 | -0.315 |
symptom | 1st | 119 | 31.36 ± 9.95 | 119 | 30.12 ± 9.95 | 0.336 | 0.256 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 73 | 30.23 ± 8.77 | 0.232 | 69 | 28.74 ± 8.66 | 0.283 | 0.307 | 0.307 |
slof_work | 1st | 119 | 22.27 ± 4.58 | 119 | 22.08 ± 4.58 | 0.745 | 0.077 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 73 | 22.53 ± 4.13 | -0.105 | 69 | 22.81 ± 4.09 | -0.290 | 0.693 | -0.108 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 119 | 24.68 ± 5.74 | 119 | 25.48 ± 5.74 | 0.284 | -0.254 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 73 | 24.58 ± 5.17 | 0.034 | 69 | 26.16 ± 5.12 | -0.216 | 0.068 | -0.503 |
satisfaction | 1st | 119 | 19.90 ± 7.23 | 119 | 21.08 ± 7.23 | 0.211 | -0.310 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 73 | 20.72 ± 6.46 | -0.218 | 69 | 22.26 ± 6.39 | -0.312 | 0.156 | -0.405 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 119 | 10.77 ± 3.75 | 119 | 10.96 ± 3.75 | 0.704 | -0.102 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 73 | 11.15 ± 3.30 | -0.207 | 69 | 11.22 ± 3.26 | -0.146 | 0.894 | -0.041 |
mhc_social | 1st | 119 | 15.34 ± 6.12 | 119 | 15.32 ± 6.12 | 0.975 | 0.008 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 73 | 16.00 ± 5.43 | -0.211 | 69 | 15.97 ± 5.37 | -0.210 | 0.975 | 0.009 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 119 | 21.84 ± 7.08 | 119 | 21.90 ± 7.08 | 0.949 | -0.016 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 73 | 22.85 ± 6.28 | -0.280 | 69 | 22.61 ± 6.21 | -0.198 | 0.822 | 0.066 |
resilisnce | 1st | 119 | 16.29 ± 4.41 | 119 | 17.02 ± 4.41 | 0.208 | -0.287 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 73 | 17.05 ± 4.01 | -0.299 | 69 | 18.51 ± 3.97 | -0.594 | 0.029 | -0.583 |
social_provision | 1st | 119 | 13.24 ± 2.84 | 119 | 13.95 ± 2.84 | 0.056 | -0.438 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 73 | 13.05 ± 2.58 | 0.118 | 69 | 14.27 ± 2.55 | -0.200 | 0.005 | -0.757 |
els_value_living | 1st | 119 | 16.88 ± 3.20 | 119 | 17.25 ± 3.20 | 0.374 | -0.209 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 73 | 17.23 ± 2.89 | -0.196 | 69 | 17.92 ± 2.86 | -0.375 | 0.156 | -0.388 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 119 | 12.50 ± 3.34 | 119 | 13.17 ± 3.34 | 0.126 | -0.386 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 73 | 12.73 ± 2.97 | -0.133 | 69 | 13.72 ± 2.94 | -0.323 | 0.047 | -0.576 |
els | 1st | 119 | 29.39 ± 6.06 | 119 | 30.42 ± 6.06 | 0.189 | -0.344 | ||
els | 2nd | 73 | 29.99 ± 5.35 | -0.202 | 69 | 31.64 ± 5.29 | -0.406 | 0.066 | -0.548 |
social_connect | 1st | 119 | 27.56 ± 9.23 | 119 | 26.53 ± 9.23 | 0.389 | 0.232 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 73 | 27.44 ± 8.12 | 0.028 | 69 | 23.54 ± 8.01 | 0.671 | 0.004 | 0.875 |
shs_agency | 1st | 119 | 13.97 ± 5.07 | 119 | 14.92 ± 5.07 | 0.153 | -0.387 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 73 | 14.38 ± 4.45 | -0.166 | 69 | 15.72 ± 4.40 | -0.329 | 0.073 | -0.550 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 119 | 15.43 ± 4.12 | 119 | 16.39 ± 4.12 | 0.074 | -0.441 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 73 | 16.01 ± 3.68 | -0.269 | 69 | 17.20 ± 3.64 | -0.376 | 0.054 | -0.548 |
shs | 1st | 119 | 29.40 ± 8.77 | 119 | 31.30 ± 8.77 | 0.096 | -0.450 | ||
shs | 2nd | 73 | 30.40 ± 7.70 | -0.237 | 69 | 32.91 ± 7.60 | -0.382 | 0.052 | -0.595 |
esteem | 1st | 119 | 12.80 ± 1.60 | 119 | 12.71 ± 1.60 | 0.685 | 0.070 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 73 | 12.67 ± 1.54 | 0.109 | 69 | 12.67 ± 1.53 | 0.036 | 0.989 | -0.003 |
mlq_search | 1st | 119 | 14.49 ± 3.45 | 119 | 15.09 ± 3.45 | 0.178 | -0.272 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 73 | 15.35 ± 3.22 | -0.386 | 69 | 15.18 ± 3.20 | -0.041 | 0.765 | 0.072 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 119 | 13.31 ± 4.22 | 119 | 13.69 ± 4.22 | 0.490 | -0.150 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 73 | 14.15 ± 3.87 | -0.334 | 69 | 14.48 ± 3.84 | -0.317 | 0.606 | -0.133 |
mlq | 1st | 119 | 27.80 ± 6.97 | 119 | 28.78 ± 6.97 | 0.277 | -0.234 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 73 | 29.50 ± 6.41 | -0.403 | 69 | 29.68 ± 6.36 | -0.213 | 0.865 | -0.043 |
empower | 1st | 119 | 19.00 ± 4.54 | 119 | 19.51 ± 4.54 | 0.384 | -0.211 | ||
empower | 2nd | 73 | 19.89 ± 4.07 | -0.364 | 69 | 20.14 ± 4.03 | -0.259 | 0.707 | -0.105 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 119 | 14.42 ± 2.59 | 119 | 14.35 ± 2.59 | 0.841 | 0.038 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 73 | 14.70 ± 2.45 | -0.157 | 69 | 15.23 ± 2.43 | -0.495 | 0.194 | -0.300 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 119 | 11.76 ± 3.09 | 119 | 11.74 ± 3.09 | 0.967 | 0.008 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 73 | 11.31 ± 2.91 | 0.215 | 69 | 10.65 ± 2.89 | 0.525 | 0.175 | 0.319 |
sss_affective | 1st | 119 | 10.40 ± 3.70 | 119 | 10.57 ± 3.70 | 0.727 | -0.086 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 73 | 9.98 ± 3.31 | 0.216 | 69 | 9.47 ± 3.27 | 0.567 | 0.352 | 0.264 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 119 | 10.22 ± 3.77 | 119 | 10.07 ± 3.77 | 0.757 | 0.079 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 73 | 9.57 ± 3.35 | 0.337 | 69 | 9.30 ± 3.31 | 0.397 | 0.634 | 0.138 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 119 | 8.74 ± 3.76 | 119 | 9.07 ± 3.76 | 0.502 | -0.168 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 73 | 8.20 ± 3.35 | 0.278 | 69 | 7.95 ± 3.31 | 0.572 | 0.661 | 0.126 |
sss | 1st | 119 | 29.36 ± 10.58 | 119 | 29.71 ± 10.58 | 0.802 | -0.069 | ||
sss | 2nd | 73 | 27.77 ± 9.26 | 0.320 | 69 | 26.79 ± 9.14 | 0.586 | 0.527 | 0.197 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(338.71) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)
2st
t(375.98) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.58)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(291.89) = -0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)
2st
t(369.28) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.61)
ras_confidence
1st
t(278.29) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)
2st
t(359.83) = 1.90, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.28)
ras_willingness
1st
t(297.92) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)
2st
t(371.63) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.04)
ras_goal
1st
t(287.18) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)
2st
t(366.77) = 1.81, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.90)
ras_reliance
1st
t(281.82) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)
2st
t(362.99) = 1.70, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.61)
ras_domination
1st
t(306.23) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)
2st
t(373.73) = 1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.25)
symptom
1st
t(273.38) = -0.96, p = 0.336, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)
2st
t(354.34) = -1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-4.37 to 1.38)
slof_work
1st
t(284.47) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.98)
2st
t(365.00) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.63)
slof_relationship
1st
t(284.00) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.26)
2st
t(364.67) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.28)
satisfaction
1st
t(279.46) = 1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)
2st
t(360.95) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.66)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(272.51) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)
2st
t(353.21) = 0.13, p = 0.894, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.16)
mhc_social
1st
t(276.10) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)
2st
t(357.55) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.75)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(276.56) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.87)
2st
t(358.06) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.30 to 1.83)
resilisnce
1st
t(288.51) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)
2st
t(367.55) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.79)
social_provision
1st
t(287.78) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)
2st
t(367.13) = 2.83, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.07)
els_value_living
1st
t(284.84) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)
2st
t(365.26) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(277.93) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)
2st
t(359.47) = 2.00, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.97)
els
1st
t(274.39) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)
2st
t(355.58) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.40)
social_connect
1st
t(272.32) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)
2st
t(352.96) = -2.88, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-6.56 to -1.24)
shs_agency
1st
t(271.81) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.24)
2st
t(352.27) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.80)
shs_pathway
1st
t(280.27) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)
2st
t(361.67) = 1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.40)
shs
1st
t(272.04) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)
2st
t(352.59) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.02 to 5.04)
esteem
1st
t(329.88) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)
2st
t(375.85) = 0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)
mlq_search
1st
t(304.73) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)
2st
t(373.43) = -0.30, p = 0.765, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.90)
mlq_presence
1st
t(293.56) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)
2st
t(370.02) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.61)
mlq
1st
t(295.53) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)
2st
t(370.80) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.29)
empower
1st
t(281.81) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.67)
2st
t(362.98) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.59)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(314.81) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)
2st
t(374.96) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.34)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(311.27) = -0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)
2st
t(374.54) = -1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.30)
sss_affective
1st
t(279.90) = 0.35, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)
2st
t(361.34) = -0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.57)
sss_behavior
1st
t(277.20) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)
2st
t(358.73) = -0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.83)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(278.55) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)
2st
t(360.08) = -0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.85)
sss
1st
t(270.20) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.05)
2st
t(349.99) = -0.63, p = 0.527, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.01 to 2.06)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(184.50) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(163.19) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(157.52) = 4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.94)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(165.74) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(161.21) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.47)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(158.98) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(169.32) = 3.34, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(155.49) = -1.71, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.22)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(160.08) = 1.76, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(159.89) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.70)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(158.00) = 1.89, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.42)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(155.13) = 0.88, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(156.61) = 1.27, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(156.80) = 1.19, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.89)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(161.77) = 3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.32)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(161.46) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(160.24) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(157.37) = 1.95, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.12)
els
1st vs 2st
t(155.90) = 2.44, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.20)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(155.05) = -4.04, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to -1.53)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(154.84) = 1.98, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.60)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(158.34) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.53)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(154.93) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(180.09) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(168.67) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(163.89) = 1.93, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.61)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(164.73) = 1.30, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.26)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(158.97) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(173.10) = 3.06, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.45)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(171.53) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(158.18) = -3.43, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(157.07) = -2.40, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.13)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(157.62) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(154.18) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.55 to -1.28)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(180.67) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.33)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(161.23) = -0.80, p = 0.846, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(156.05) = 1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.61)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(163.56) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.47)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(159.43) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.89)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(157.39) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.75)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(166.82) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.46)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(154.20) = -1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.43)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(158.40) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.07)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(158.22) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.89)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(156.50) = 1.35, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.03)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(153.87) = 1.28, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.96)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(155.22) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.64)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(155.40) = 1.73, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.15)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(159.94) = 1.86, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.55)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(159.66) = -0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.32)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(158.54) = 1.22, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.91)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(155.92) = 0.82, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.78)
els
1st vs 2st
t(154.58) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.56)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(153.80) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.30)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(153.60) = 1.03, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.18)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(156.80) = 1.67, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.28)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(153.69) = 1.46, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.35)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(176.64) = -0.70, p = 0.974, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.24)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(166.23) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.56)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(161.87) = 2.09, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.63)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(162.63) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.03)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(157.38) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.66)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(170.27) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.83)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(168.84) = -1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.20)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(156.66) = -1.34, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.20)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(155.64) = -2.09, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.26 to -0.03)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(156.15) = -1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.08)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(153.00) = -1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to 0.00)